Question to ameri/k/ans: I've seen american (US) vehicle

File: 20090224_th1808.jpg (1MB, 3328x4992px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3328x4992px

Pic related, our soft mount

>>34272050
Why do you need an optic on a vehicle mounted exposed mg?

I would imagine it's a combination of can't be fucked to spend a shitload of money doing trials and then actually buying them, can't be fucked to make the armorers maintain them and the troops sight them, walking fire does the job good enough because the doctrine of fire and maneuver (You don't actually need to hit the enemy, just hit close enough to make him keep his head down so your guys can move closer and THEN shoot him) is applied to MGs and means direct hitting isn't all that important.

And on top of that, a range of a couple hundred meters being more than sufficient for dealing with VBIEDs, which get closer than that before you start shooting at them. And are all the US military have been dealing with for the last however the fuck long.

Kind of like how our artillery is either towed and very manpower intensive or self propelled and somewhat out of date compared to autoloading/heavy loader assist European stuff, but it doesn't really matter that much because it does the job well enough and replacing it would be expensive and all we're shooting at is asymmetrical forces anyway.

But I don't actually know, that's all conjecture. So I'm looking forward to hearing from someone with actual experience.

We have tens of thousands of the things in service and it'd be extremely expensive to equip them all with optics. It's relatively unimportant anyway, because most .50s in US service are fitted as close-range defensive weapons, not long-range offensive ones. Optics also require that the operator be in a certain position behind the weapon to use them, which is difficult to ensure with a multi-ethnic force where there may be a foot or more of height difference between different gunners, and when many mounts are designed for aiming with tracers and not down the sights.

We do have optics in inventory and service, but they're not common and as far as I know they're mostly limited to the armored vehicles that use .50s as primary weapons (mostly in remote control mounts) and for special ops type roles where .50s are used offensively on boats or light attack vehicles.

File: PRT_14_LARS_KROKEN-86_1.jpg (834KB, 1944x1296px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 1944x1296px

>>34272073
>>34272070
Yea, that makes kinda sense if it's only used for close combat.
We used them mostly as primary guns (unless we brought the APC with Mk44 Bushmaster II) on patrols, but taken into account that most times we got shot at was out in the hillside it kinda makes sense that we had to have some form of optics.

>>34272103
>APC
>CV90

Triggering my autism here

>>34272116
True, kinda missed there. Did mean IFV.

>>34272050
Precision sights or optics are pointless on a HMG. Sights are used to get the weapon close to being on target. When the weapon is actually fired you are looking over it and making adjustments to your aim from observing the bullet splash.

As for proper mounts the images you posted are actually LESS suited for long range shooting. First both appear to lack a Traversing and Elevation mechanism to allow for fine adjustments of the weapons aim. Secondly that bike brake trigger mechanism doesn't allow for as much control over the gun as if you were using the spade grips. By grasping directly onto the spade grips that in turn are directly attached to the receiver allows you to pin the gun down against the cradle better. This allows you to minimize the movement of the gun when fired, leading to a tighter cone of fire and a smaller beaten zone.

>>34272073
>defensive
No.
>>34272070
>thinking mg is used purely for suppressive fire

Damn this thread makes me sad.
Anon, when you finally shoot a full giggle 50cal you'll notice 2 things
>1. fuck loads of recoil
>2. Unstabalized platform.

Recoil means trying to zero will be difficult (you zero mg by their burst pattern, even if you can make them single shot) unstabalized means lol shoot in bursts.
Like the second anon I quoted, you can easily walk it onto target. Next, current doctrine: it's intended for vehicles, stationary fortifications, but not individuals (not to be confused with it's against Geneva convention to shoot 50cal at people, that's just us roe from the war on terror)

On an unstabalized 50cal you can easily walk onto vehicle sized targets at 1200m. Having an optic would only obscure your vision, probably lose zero unless it's ridiculously expensive, be expensive to zero, and largely be a waste.

It wouldn't be the stupidest thing. They get night optics. They have acogs- no one ever uses them though

File: DSC00058.jpg (3MB, 2736x3648px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2736x3648px

>>34272130
np, have a pic

File: itkk.jpg (2MB, 3888x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3888x2592px

>>34272168
>Having an optic would only obscure your vision, probably lose zero unless it's ridiculously expensive, be expensive to zero, and largely be a waste.
Good ones hardly obscure your vision, but you'll be reliant on walking onto targets or spotters shouting anyway.
>It wouldn't be the stupidest thing. They get night optics. They have acogs- no one ever uses them though
It'd be smart, yeah, which is why I'm wondering why the US isn't using them. Every single NSV, as far as I'm aware in the FDF has optics in the box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjL5zdyRUE0

>>34272192
They make sense here in a fixed position overwatching a large area with quite a standoff distance.

The capacity and range that vehicle mounted M2's engage at don't really call for optics.

>>34272168
Carlos hathcock seemed able to hit targets with a browning and a 60s era scope

>>34272168
>(not to be confused with it's against Geneva convention to shoot 50cal at people, that's just us roe from the war on terror)


Why was it against US ROE to use .50BMG at personnel? Seems like it would be super effective at suppression/getting through hard cover

File: 12139823_1682205352066360_81533125_n.jpg (166KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1080x1080px

>>34272264
They do if they're defensive against helicopters and other air threats. But then again
>USA
>air threat

Tracers and bullet splash

>>34272192
>NSV
The russians really did design a fantastic gun there. I know it's on a tripod but look at the recoil on that thing. Fantastic.

File: 130621-N-FN215-205.jpg (2MB, 7360x4912px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7360x4912px

I think these are Seabees, correct me if I'm wrong but you can clearly see an optic on this .50

>>34272305
There's also a ton of weight in the pouch strapped onto the tripod as you can see in the picture. In dire straits, one of the MG crew can substitute as weight.

>>34272309
>I just realised I mixed up the NSV with the Kord

>>34272192
Vehicles are unstabalized weapon platforms, unless it's like a crows which obviously has an optic.

I think you're largely looking at this as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. This weapon system is old, with the little added value the psg and every sergeant isn't going to let you mount it because it's easier to inventory and not have joe lose if it's kept in the armoury. If you field it no one is going to put it on their equipment, like the acog I mentioned, you're going to have the same perception regardless.

It wouldn't be stupid, but it wouldn't be smart either.

File: itkk_copy.jpg (140KB, 1920x1081px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1920x1081px

>>34272311
But the 12.7 ITKK 96 IS an NSV. Or did you mean the NSV isn't actually good?

>>34272050
>why you don't have proper optics and mounts

Limited field of view

Don't really need them too much either when you have plenty of ammo and are able to saturate the area with a lot of big, nasty heavy bullets and tracers

Because just like any 7.62mm support weapon, the .50 cal HMG is designed to create a beating zone and is not an overly accurate weapon.

>>34272278
In your scenario that's justified, it's a fortified position. Suppression can be accomplished with other weapon systems, so that's a gray area. It's really down to the legal office if you're fucked.

Your m4 is out of reach/destroyed, enemy engaging you beyond m4 effective range, enemy has overwhelming numbers, no one is going throw you in jail for shooting haji in the open with a .50

It's largely part of the hearts and minds, using only the necessary amount p
Of force, (confusing when we regularly use apache and drones), and not destroying the nation.

>>34272306

>earplugs

What a pussy.

>>34272335
I spent the better part of a year pissing 12.7mm MPT in every contact we had, and nobody ever mentioned anything about this stuff in our ROE. If the fucker decided to put down his weapon and walk away after firing, that suddenly made him an unvalid target for some reason..

>>34272103
This looks like a planet surface from Mass Effect 1.

>>34272103
TMBN?

>>34272336
>earplugs
what?!

>>34272336
EEEEeeeeeeeEEEEEEEeeeeeee

>>34272050
A gunner in a good machine gun team could be blind and still get rounds on target. Its all about his team leader/vehicle commander/whatever walking him on target

>>34272070
Is caliber important for suppressive fire ?

File: hdo.jpg (11KB, 480x268px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x268px

>>34272050
the US Marines have Heavy Machinegun Day Optics in limited numbers.
pic related

Everyone in this thread is overthinking this seriously
>why not mount an optic on it
You lose sight picture after your first shot from a weapon designed to spew lead at low flying aircraft and lightly or unarmored vehicles.
MG's are suppressive weapons, not accurate ones

>>34272051
Ola dunk ja?

>>34272336
I agrEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>34272050
There is an optic on the one in your pic annon.

>>34273457
Yes, but the picture is not of american forces

>>34272183
sekc

File: 11704_MPS3_11925_MGMount_11460_QD_Mount_M1_RF.png (961KB, 1118x1560px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 1118x1560px

>>34272164
>Has no experience with optics on a HMG.
>Does not take night operations in consideration.
>Does not know what a SOFT mount is.

>>34272168
An Aimpoint for a .50 is about as expensive as 3 ammo boxes for the thing. As you'll be on target every thirst burst, so its actually cheaper than not using it. Holding zero is not a problem.
Again, you clearly can't even comprehend how to zero optics on an HMG.

So if it sucks so bad how come SOF units and other countries do employ optics on HMG and GMG so successfully?

File: Amtracker.jpg (1008KB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 3072x2048px

We get sights for our .50, shit we get a whole fuckin' turret